MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401816063 · doi:10.1063/5.0208571

Needle in a haystack: Efficiently finding atomically defined quantum dots for electrostatic force microscopy

2024· article· en· W4401816063 on OpenAlexafffund
José Bustamante, Yoichi Miyahara, Logan Fairgrieve‐Park, Kieran Spruce, P. See, Neil J. Curson, Taylor J. Z. Stock, Peter Grütter

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNational Research Council
KeywordsHaystackQuantum dotElectrostatic force microscopeMicroscopyAtomic force microscopyMaterials sciencePhotoconductive atomic force microscopyNanotechnologyMagnetic force microscopeKelvin probe force microscopePhysicsOpticsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsScanning confocal electron microscopyArtificial intelligenceMagnetic fieldScanning capacitance microscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ongoing development of single electron, nano-, and atomic scale semiconductor devices would greatly benefit from a characterization tool capable of detecting single electron charging events with high spatial resolution at low temperatures. In this work, we introduce a novel Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) instrument capable of measuring critical device dimensions, surface roughness, electrical surface potential, and ultimately the energy levels of quantum dots and single electron transistors in ultra miniaturized semiconductor devices. The characterization of nanofabricated devices with this type of instrument presents a challenge: finding the device. We, therefore, also present a process to efficiently find a nanometer sized quantum dot buried in a 10 × 10 mm2 silicon sample using a combination of optical positioning, capacitive sensors, and AFM topography in a vacuum.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207